The Digital Economy Bill has become one of the most heavily debated topics on this site. Posts related to it often generate a large number of comments, but today’s have done far more than that.
A bit of background first for anyone new to the story or catching up on it. The Digital Economy Bill has generated a lot of controversy for its proposals to do with copyright and illegal filesharing, with Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group urging the party to oppose it in a guest post. Some of those issues I took up in an interview with Don Foster, reported on here.
In the last day or so there has been particular focus on an amendment put forward in the Lords by Tim Clement-Jones and Tim Razzall, the reasoning for which Tim Clement-Jones explained in a post here but which journalist and author (and Lib Dem member) Cory Doctorow disagreed with.
Tim Clement-Jones has responded to many of the criticisms made of the amendment in an interview earlier today with ZDNet, including this answer on the risks of censorship:
Do you think your amendment might need further tweaking to prevent it being used for some kind of censorship?
If there are rough edges to the amendment, we’ll certainly look at those. If people have genuine amendments they want to put forward, I’d be perfectly happy to look at that, and I hope the government would too. But I don’t believe, in its current form, there is any possibility of censorship.
You can read the full interview here.
In the latest move in the debate within the party, a group of Liberal Democrat prospective Parliamentary candidates have penned an open letter:
We write to express our concern at the amendments to the Digital Economy Bill tabled by Liberal Democrat peers with Conservative support today. The amendments would allow the High Court to issue injunctions to ISPs to block sites for copyright infringement.
We are proud of the record of Liberal Democrat peers in taking swift action, including working across party lines, to defeat some of the worst legislation to come out of this Labour government. We applaud the intention to give parties accused of copyright infringement the protection of the courts rather than subjecting them to the political whim of the Secretary of State. But in practice these amendments would still lead to a situation that is incompatible with our principles of freedom and fairness.
Giving the power to block whole sites, in the world of user-generated content, is both draconian and unworkable.
Using the courts runs the same risk as the libel laws, of empowering the rich and well-connected to close down comment from those who may have right on their side, but cannot afford to contest cases.
By encouraging self-censorship to avoid possible penalty, this legislation could act perniciously against free speech in a free society.
We fear that these amendments take a public position that is at odds with our Party’s values, our other policies, and the reality of the digital environment.
As prospective MPs, we ask our current Parliamentary colleagues to think again.
Yours sincerely,
Bridget Fox, Islington South & Finsbury
Julian Huppert, Cambridge
Martin Tod, Winchester
Farid Ahmed, Walthamstow
Jon Ball, Ealing Central & Acton
Alan Beddow, Warwick & Leamington
Mike Bell, Weston-super-Mare
Duncan Borrowman, Old Bexley & Sidcup
Sal Brinton, Watford
Belinda Brooks-Gordon, West Suffolk
Alan Bullion, Sevenoaks
Adrian Collett, Aldershot
Andrew Dakers, Brentford & Isleworth
Sue Doughty, Guildford
Helen Duffett, Romford
Merlene Emerson, Hammersmith
Gareth Epps, Reading East
Ed Fordham, Hampstead & Kilburn
Steve Goddard, Oxford East
Simon McDougall, Bognor Regis & Littlehampton
Jo Shaw, Holborn & St Pancras
Sandy Walkington, St Albans
Peter Welch, Southend West
Munira Wilson, Feltham & Heston
Simon Wright, Norwich South
From the conversations I’ve had with key people in the party, there is clearly a great willingness to try to find a line that has broad support in the party so the letter, combined with the interview answer quoted above, suggests there may be more news to come.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Vince Cable: let's change our politics, and change our party
Views from the Baltic
Protest on Ludlow parking charge hike confirmed for 6pm Tuesday on Castle Square - please join us
The Blood is the Life for 20-07-2018
My tweets
Letter from America: how Americans think
Millicent Holme – Celebrating her life in Lydiate
Old Dundee - Tay Square
A question of trust
John Kelly
Peter Watson
David Raw
Joseph Bourke
David Allen
20 Comments
Good stuff – I await developments. And, leaving aside the DEBill in particular, I still think it’s a good idea to try and get a working party on IT off the ground with a view to putting up a spokesperson.
Just goes to show if you don’t ask, you don’t get.
A working party on IP as well please!
forgot to follow the thread…
I’ve been trying to do something similar as well but didn’t hear about this letter until now. I wish to add my endorsement as a 26th PPC
Richard Gadsden, Worsley and Eccles South.
Good news, but hardly surprising. To say the commons contingent of the party would want to act differently from the Lords part this close to an election is surely to teach people to suck eggs.
Surely the main thing that needs to come from all of this (aside from your party getting an IT working group together) is that copyright law, and IP as Jock talks about, seriously needs to be reviewed in this country, and that it’s farcical to try and make laws such as the Digital Economy Bill without first creating a stable and solid basis upon which it can be built.
I said in the other thread that I didn’t think 102a was as bad as people made out, but the one thing I think is clear is that where it is bad it’s because of existing bad law, or poor guidance and practice by key parties in legal processes about copyright.
My first reaction when I heard about this amendment was to quit the party. I felt betrayed. I’ve calmed down since, and I’m glad to see others in the party feel the same sense of… disappointment… that we’re tabling amendments that we ought to be objecting to on principle.
I spoke to my MP about the bill, voicing my objects. Susan Kramer’s office never did get back to me. They said they needed to figure out what policy to adopt and they’d get back to me. Guess I know why they never did.
Not many PPCs outside the South East is there? Lib Dem post not go that far?
No, no, it’s just all the intellectuals, who don’t want to be anybody’s property!
Sorry – bad joke 🙂
Our last major work on IT policy is still available online at http://www.makeitpolicy.org.uk/
As well as being interesting for what were very innovative consultation methods back in 2002 (is it that long ago?) largely thanks to Martin Tod who is a signatory to this letter, the contents I think stand the test of time pretty well.
It would be really helpful to do a similar exercise again now with all the benefits of 2010 techniques for engagement.
Richard Allan – former LD IT Spokesperson.
I would happily add myself to this letter.
The amendments are well intended, but the courts are already used enough to stifle free speech.
Absolutely shameful amendment. It needs to be overturned as fast as possible.
I would add myself also to this letter. A good strong reaction from candidates. My suspicion is that the average age of candidates being younger than MPs and much younger than Lords means that actually PPCs understand this issue of how people use the internet much better than Parliamentarians.
I’ve posted a blog with my own suggested for amending the Digital Economy bill instead or Lord Razzle & Clement-Jones amendment 120a http://liberalprovocateur.vox.com/library/post/an-alternative-to-the-two-tims-amendment-to-the-de-bill.html
The interview conspicuously failed to ask his Lordship about his relationship with IP lawyers DLA Piper. He takes money from people who represent media companies, he should have never proposed the amendment.
Would make sense for you to reconsider your direction on this, with a view to a wide reform of copyright (and patent, BTW), law, and the impact of increasing restrictions and enforcement of “intellectual property” on the basic freedoms of communication, speech, and expression in a liberal society.
I already see that you have members and activists who are sympathetic to our aims in the Pirate Party; and of course we welcome defectors with political experience who are dissatisfied with their present party view on these issues, and wish to “jump ship”.
*Sigh*
John Barron, if you’d care to look at the first trackback link you’ll see that, thanks in part to the pressure put on them by this party’s activists and commenters from the Pirate party amongst others, we have actually succeeded in getting the lords in question to listen to us. Discussions are going to take place to reassess both the amendment and (I hope) our whole strategy on the DEBill. To the best of my knowledge the discussions will involve ORG, some of the PPCs who signed this letter and Cory Doctorow amongst others. This process will be what we make of it – we can all see the names of the people involved, we can all lobby them directly with our particular objections whether we’re Lib Dems or not. It would have been far better, of course, had such advice been sought before drafting the amendment. But we are where we are.
And I sigh in your general direction because now that discussions are actually happening and we all have a chance to stick our oar in with the knowledge that parliamentarians are listening, the considered contribution of some (though by no means all) in the Pirate Party appears to be to call for defectors.
Shouldn’t we, you know, concentrate on the legislation, seeing as there are, you know, actual politicians paying attention to us at the moment? Or is the Pirate Party not really interested in the possibility of influencing a legislative outcome when it comes to it if they can make a narrow political point instead?
(And for what it’s worth, I’m sure people can make up their own minds perfectly well about which party they support without being assured they will be welcomed if they have political experience. You may need to rethink your language there because I’m getting more complacent conservative than radical liberal.)
About a decade ago I resigned from the party on account of the disgraceful behaviour of one of the party’s representatives in the Lords. I was thinking of coming back to the fold again, until I saw this amendment. It is now impossible for me to consider supporting the party, because it is clearly somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan in it’s technology policy. Lord Clement-Jones, with his well-known ignorance of computer science, information technology, and indeed oif the world wide web has perpetrated an idiocy which will not be forgotten. Why throw away the safeguards incorporated in the 1988 act and decide that ISPs are guilty even if not adequately informed of any copyright concerns? Is this compatible with the EU directive which provides immunity to ISPs when they simply transmit information provioded by others and have not received adequate advice of any copyright problems (I’ve talked to a couple of competent lawyers, and the advice I get is that it is not – what a wonderful source of income for lawyers this amendment is). Who will benefit from this nonsense? Certainly not the British people as a whole! Perhaps the plutrocrats of the various media industries, who seem to be completely unable top reconcile themselves either with modern technology or with fair use rights; or perhaps with the lawyers whom I suspect are the only peolple who will benefit from this nonsense (the colleagues of Lord Clement Jones, although I’m sure that’s just a coincidence).
Lol, Tom…with these theatrics where can we next see you in pantomime?
Glad to hear (as an ORG member and LibDem voter) that the LibDems are taking advice on their approach to this issue from ORG.
I really love this party. Sure, some can do silly things sometimes, like the two Lords’ amendment, but compared to the other parties, seems to me that the LibDems manage far more often to have the right approach to things.
An emergency motion has gone into LibDem conference. You can read the text at http://bridgetfox.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/that-emergency-motion-in-full/
Conference reps going to Birmingham, please support this motion being prioritised for debate; and then please support it in the debate!
6 Trackbacks
[…] we covered an open letter from 25+ Liberal Democrat prospective Parliamentary candidates (and see also this comment from ex-MP Richard Allan), expressing concerns over the line the party […]
[…] and self-serving. I have no hesitation in branding Lord Clement-Jones a disgrace to his party. 25 other Liberal Democrat PPCs have made their opposition to the Amendment clear in an open letter. Another open letter is a little more direct. Equally I have no hesitation in branding Lord […]
[…] Digital Economy Bill is currently being debated in the Lords, but many Lib Dems are unhappy with an amendment put forward by Lib Dem Lords Tim Clement-Jones and Tim Razzall. Bridget Fox […]
[…] Bridget Fox, one of our party’s more impressive prospective MPs, was alerted to the problems by angered Islington constituents. She leapt into action and rousted 25 fellow PPCs into expressing the concerns and anger to the party’s parliamentarians. […]
[…] is the latest in a series of events within the Liberal Democrats, which began with an open letter by Bridget Fox and 24 other PPCs. This expressed concern at amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat […]
[…] candidate for Watford. This is a much better response and I’m pleased that Sal has signed an open letter to rethink the Digital Economy Act. Sal’s response is one of the reasons I’m 99% […]